Jeremy successfully brought a motion to compel the Plaintiff to post security for costs in this action against our client. The motion judge granted the motion after agreeing that the Plaintiff’s claim of impecuniosity was “completely unreliable” and the claim was “almost certain to fail” on the merits. The action was later dismissed on a motion for the Plaintiff’s failure to post the security that was ordered.
Jeremy successfully represented a physiotherapist against several complaints to the College of Physiotherapists of Ontario. The Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (“the Committee”) undertook a thorough review of the evidence and arguments of the parties, and was persuaded to take no action in relation to any of the complaints. The Applicant appealed the decision to the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, which upheld the Committee’s decision upon appeal.
After successfully defending Mr. Hillary at trial, the Plaintiff appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Plaintiff argued that Mr. Hillary should be responsible for the $1.8M cost of remediating the contamination on the Plaintiff’s property. The Court of Appeal agreed with our position and the appeal was dismissed with costs.
Jeremy successfully resisted the proposed intervention by Ecojustice in the appeal of our Huang v Fraser Hillary’s Limited trial victory. Amongst other things, the Chief Justice of the Ontario Court of Appeal agreed that intervention as a friend of the Court was not appropriate because the appeal concerned a private dispute, the proposed intervenor’s submissions would not be helpful, and the proposed intervention would cause an injustice to our client.
Jeremy was co-counsel for the Defendant, David Hillary, on this environmental contamination case. Mr. Hillary was a homeowner that lived in a property beside a dry cleaning facility. Before Mr. Hillary purchased the property there were dry cleaning spills into the ground that sunk beneath the property Mr. Hillary later purchased. The Plaintiff sued the dry cleaning company and Mr. Hillary for the remediation costs of the contamination that flowed downgradient from these properties to the Plaintiff’s property. Our firm successfully defended our client at trial on all 4 causes of action (Nuisance, Negligence, Trespass and liability under s99 of the Environmental Protections Act) that were raised in relation to the flow of dry cleaning contamination. The trial judge dismissed the claim in its entirety against our client on this case where damages were assessed at $1.8M.
Jeremy represented Mr. Dudzicki who was a tenant at the Plaintiffs’ residence. A fire broke out at the Plaintiffs’ residence which was paid for by the Plaintiffs’ insurance company. The insurance company brought a subrogated claim against Mr. Dudzicki to try and recover its payout. Jeremy brought a motion to dismiss the claim against Mr. Dudzicki for want of jurisdiction, on the basis that the Landlord Tenant Board had exclusive jurisdiction to hear the issue and the limitation period had expired. Jeremy was successful in the motion and the claim was dismissed against Mr. Dudzicki.
Jeremy represented Mr. Lalonde in this case where the Plaintiff allegedly slipped and fell on Mr. Lalonde’s property. Jeremy successfully brought a motion on behalf of our client to dismiss the action against him. The Court dismissed the claim after finding that the Plaintiff’s claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action and had no meaningful chance of success at trial.
Tara successfully defended this appeal from a Small Claims Court Judgment to the Divisional Court. Central to the Appeal was the question of whether or not Deputy Justice Fortier had correctly applied the law as it related to unjust enrichment and whether or not the defence of change of position applied.
Kelly Hart and Ellie Nekiar successfully defended a store owner against allegations of assault, battery, and wrongful imprisonment in a three week trial. The jury found against the Plaintiff and the claim was dismissed in its entirety.
Within the trial, Kelly and Ellie successfully defended a motion in which the Plaintiff sought to exclude all of the Defendants’ surveillance evidence. Justice S. Corthorn ordered that the Defendants were entitled to use significant portions of the surveillance at trial.
Kelly Hart represented the Defendant succeeding both on a cross-motion and in dismissing the Plaintiff’s motion. The Plaintiff sought to use the evidence of his former solicitor alone in support of his motion to proceed with the action under a pseudonym. This affidavit was struck and the court found that even if the affidavit has remained, on the evidence presented, he would not have been able to properly consider the required factors for allowing a case to proceed with a party assuming a pseudonym.
